Remaster Update - First Art Preview

chem · May 7, 2019

15 hours ago, cn2mc said:

chem, I wasn't debating this with you, but I acknowledge your opinion and I fully understand why something with the aesthetics of a child's toy appeals to you.

Who else thinks it looks like a toy?

I think the original looks more like a toy than this one does this looks more gritty and realistic to me when compared with the original!?

Its slightly unfortunate that the pivot points of the crane look like screws I admit, but you wont even notice it in game, I would have thought its a non issue pedantic stuff and overall it looks great and more gritty than the original building not to mention better looking,/more aesthetically pleasing?

I mean a lot of cnc1 looks a little toy like it is a game for boys, the mammoth tank looks like a toy, a rather cool toy, the HON, the airstrip, flame tank, orca, obelisk, temple, etc its IS a child's game! Not an adult war simulator!

Cn2mc you said you wanted it kept in theme with the original and that's exactly what they have done now you complain its not more adult themed. That doesn't make any sense.

Edited May 7, 2019 by chem

cn2mc · May 9, 2019

On 5/7/2019 at 11:44 AM, chem said:

Who else thinks it looks like a toy?

If you actually take time to read the threads you post in, you'd find many of the answers to the redundant questions you keep asking. I'm not your secretary or personal aide, do some reading. And some growing up. As I already said, you are completely entitled to have poor taste and I don't intend to debate this with you.

chem · May 10, 2019

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 1:43 AM, cn2mc said:

If you actually take time to read the threads you post in, you'd find many of the answers to the redundant questions you keep asking. I'm not your secretary or personal aide, do some reading. And some growing up. As I already said, you are completely entitled to have poor taste and I don't intend to debate this with you.

No you just want to avoid addressing the points because you are contradicting yourself.

You do realise the original cnc is a game made for boys like playing toy soldiers just on a computer instead of with models? Sure some adult fully grown men play with toy soldiers and build toy tanks etc but those toys and this game was intended for boys from the 90's era and many of the units look like toys.

You also said you wanted it to stay as close to the original as possible. Its doing that by keeping it looking like the original which IS toy like.

So what do you want? An adult themed war simulator? (because that isn't close to the original cnc1)

Edited May 10, 2019 by chem

ore_truck · May 10, 2019

The screws do make it look like a toy. The buildings in the original games does have a little bit of comical architecture (temple of nod resembling a scorpion, hand of nod showing a hand squeezing the Earth) but at least they still look like freaking buildings, not having screws and rivet bolts fastened into them!

Hungry Mike · May 11, 2019

I dont see a toy right there, i see an absolutely serious looking mcv, only in high graphics. A "toy" would look like in RA3, but thats obviously not the case. And i dont care much for that stuff, i just want that they stick to:

a) 1 Engineer + apc as we know it in TD

b) 4 Helis as we know it in TD

c) Units are the same as in TD - NO changes, but maybe some additional units (wolverine and cyborgs?)

d) !!! CHANGE HARVS TO HIGH IQ HARVS WITH HIGH REACTION TIME !!!

e) Make the "t" buttom available, just like in TS, to select any unit of the seleted unit's group in range of the selected unit

f) Make sure we can select an higher amount of units/buildings to be built.

g) An easy map creator, to make high tib maps

h) Let the game be as it was! No C&C 4 failure intended please!

cn2mc · May 11, 2019

Yes, there is comical architecture in the original C&C, but this is more comical, there are toy-like units and buildings in C&C, but this is much, much more toy-like. Instead of using the new hardware possibilities to make it look more gritty and realistic, which was what the original obviously tried to do with the pixels it had to work with, they are now going for a more toy-like look. This my main point. My secondary, subjective argument, since we all know that appreciation of art is a subjective matter, is that I believe this to be a wrong artistic choice that unnecessarily deviates from the original. Many people seem to like it and I hardly mind that. What I do mind is people saying we should basically accept whatever EA throws out at us without criticism. And I'm not debating people's taste. I'm repeating this (and my entire bloody argument) for the third and final time, specifically for chem, who either can't or refuses to read my previous posts in this thread.

Where do I contradict myself in any of this, chem? Also, if you really believe what you're saying, about C&C being meant for kids, you might want to check some statistics, like what the average age of gamers was in the mid 90's and what it is today, who owned the majority of PCs back then, how much home computers did people have across the world, what demographic used to spend and still spends the biggest amount of money on games, etc. Sure. Kids can play C&C, I was 9 when it came out and I first played the DOS version at a friends house. But in reality it is a family game, broadly targeted at both kids and their parents, who do the actual spending. And this is also obvious by the fact that they took a whole lot of time to make the setting, story and graphics convincing enough. This is not convincing at all. Neither is your argument, so just drop it.

In the end, this is a piece of arguably bad promotional eye-candy and, in reality, how the game would play and feel and what changes will be made under the hood is much more important than art. Unfortunately we're not hearing anything about that. I hope the effort on that front is closer to the original and more concentrated than in the artistic department.

chem · May 11, 2019

37 minutes ago, cn2mc said:

Yes, there is comical architecture in the original C&C, but this is more comical, there are toy-like units and buildings in C&C, but this is much, much more toy-like. Instead of using the new hardware possibilities to make it look more gritty and realistic, which was what the original obviously tried to do with the pixels it had to work with, they are now going for a more toy-like look. This my main point. My secondary, subjective argument, since we all know that appreciation of art is a subjective matter, is that I believe this to be a wrong artistic choice that unnecessarily deviates from the original. Many people seem to like it and I hardly mind that. What I do mind is people saying we should basically accept whatever EA throws out at us without criticism. And I'm not debating people's taste. I'm repeating this (and my entire bloody argument) for the third and final time, specifically for chem, who either can't or refuses to read my previous posts in this thread.

Where do I contradict myself in any of this, chem? Also, if you really believe what you're saying, about C&C being meant for kids, you might want to check some statistics, like what the average age of gamers was in the mid 90's and what it is today, who owned the majority of PCs back then, how much home computers did people have across the world, what demographic used to spend and still spends the biggest amount of money on games, etc. Sure. Kids can play C&C, I was 9 when it came out and I first played the DOS version at a friends house. But in reality it is a family game, broadly targeted at both kids and their parents, who do the actual spending. And this is also obvious by the fact that they took a whole lot of time to make the setting, story and graphics convincing enough. This is not convincing at all. Neither is your argument, so just drop it.

In the end, this is a piece of arguably bad promotional eye-candy and, in reality, how the game would play and feel and what changes will be made under the hood is much more important than art. Unfortunately we're not hearing anything about that. I hope the effort on that front is closer to the original and more concentrated than in the artistic department.

Well again you say you want it both gritty and as close to the original as possible, well the original isn't gritty its cartoon and toy like, so that's the contradiction.

You say they were trying to make it look realistic and gritty but you don't know what their intentions were, those are probably your intentions, that's what you want for the remaster.

But then you also said keep it as close to the original as possible. So again that doesn't make sense.

Even with the few pixels they had which does tend to make things look cartoony they clearly made mammoth tanks, flame tanks, obelisks, temples, Mobius etc I would argue that they were not trying to be gritty (in total only in parts) but entertaining.

I disagree that it looks less gritty, with the extra detail it cant help but look more gritty almost, and less cartoon like, again barring those screws.

Edited May 11, 2019 by chem

cn2mc · May 12, 2019

I still see no inner contradiction in my argument. If anything, I'm contradicting your subjective opinion on TD's original art and I stand by mine, but this is not a philosophical debate on the nature of perception.

X3M · May 12, 2019

I am agreeing with cn2mc on this one regarding the "they worked with the pixels they had" and "they tried to make it look gritty".
Those where awesome graphics in those days.

If they try it now. They should not make it look like a dirtied toy.

chem · May 12, 2019

5 hours ago, cn2mc said:

I still see no inner contradiction in my argument. If anything, I'm contradicting your subjective opinion on TD's original art and I stand by mine, but this is not a philosophical debate on the nature of perception.

"Instead of using the new hardware possibilities to make it look more gritty and realistic, which was what the original obviously tried to do with the pixels it had to work with"

That means you think westwood making flame tanks, dr Mobius, temple, hon, the airstrip, bike, obelisks, stealth tank, missile tower, refinery, mammoth tank, commando etc was westwood trying to be gritty.

They could do grit with those few pixels see the A10, apache, med tank mrls, barracks, buggies etc, they chose to make it fun entertaining childish toy like cartoon like and so on.